If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't expect perfection in extending callings. I do think if the claim of zero tolerance for abuse is accurate that they have to include a system to red flag past sexual assault to prevent future callings. I think we all agree that we can't rely on superpowers.

that makes sense, but seems like a different argument - which is a good thing, imo.

right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: “they act by revelation except when they don’t, even if they’re saying they do sometimes.” prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. what’s the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?

I certainly wouldn't spin it like that. You (and others) seem to be arguing that if they are not perfect, there are not exceptional. I disagree.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

That question and its answer has little bearing on this specific discussion.

If no, Bishop is possibly but not necessarily an example to support it.

If yes, Bishop is a meaningless example outside of infallibility.

the question is central to the discussion, knucklehead. what is the point of having a called and set apart mouthpiece of god on earth if we’re all playing a guessing game about the fidelity of that persons stagements and actions vis a vis god? how is that different from any other smart person?

I certainly wouldn't spin it like that. You (and others) seem to be arguing that if they are not perfect, there are not exceptional. I disagree.

but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.

right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: ďthey act by revelation except when they donít, even if theyíre saying they do sometimes.Ē prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. whatís the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?

The standard is: they act by revelation, but that revelation cannot account for all potentialities associated with personal agency in the context of mortal existence.

right. but from an objective standpoint the standard you and creekster are advancing is: “they act by revelation except when they don’t, even if they’re saying they do sometimes.” prophets are purportedly specifically called and given a specific set of tools and keys to act as the sponsor of of god to men with respect to the church writ large. but, your version of revelation is also accurate with respect to pope francis, plato and robert plant: smart but fallible people who sometimes say good things. what’s the difference other than the toyota avalons and mr mac suits?

TO the contrary, this is exactly why we are asked to sustain them as prophets and seers and revelators. Sometimes God does reveal and allow then to see, but not alwyas. And not, IMO, for callings very often, if at all. But, if God is going to reveal anything for the church, he will do it through them, and not you or me or the Pope Francis who no longer believes in hell. So we sustain them to that office, but we do not sustain them to receive complete, accurate and instant revelation any time it might be useful to prevent or avoid a negative consequence for any member of the church.

but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.

Yes. It is entirely rational to make that claim yet acknowledge that they are not perfect. I am puzzled why this is such a stumbling block.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

the question is central to the discussion, knucklehead. what is the point of having a called and set apart mouthpiece of god on earth if we’re all playing a guessing game about the fidelity of that persons stagements and actions vis a vis god? how is that different from any other smart person?

It is not central, as I explained in my other post. In fact, it is of no value in looking at Bishop, although it is a fair question otherwise. The point of having a prophet is to get revelation when God decides to give it to us and to get it in an organized fashion. The 'guessing game' is the agency that we all have and accordingly we need to seek our own inspiration and make our own choices. God has never asked us (or allowed us) to abdicate our own responsibility in that regard, knucklehead.

but the church’s claim is not that they are exceptional or even the best men or that they’re trying really hard. it is that they are uniquely called and qualified prophets, seers and revelators with the authority and specific, technical keys to act on behalf of and speak for god.

I believe that we all act under revelation, and I do not believe the leadership has more advanced insight or revelation than you or me. And they are as fallible as all of us as well.

That answer would not get me a TR in my next interview if given. Also would locally have me viewed as a heretic who would not be placed in callings where use of my agency would impact other members in a church setting.

That's a really sad document to read. He confessed everything to Elder Wells, and still got called to be MTC President. "Joseph, old boy, could you run the MTC for us?"

Also, it's Cali, Colombia, not Columbia.

I didn't know that Cali(fornia) was in Colombia.

I think a lot of callings are based on who you know...

president of the Qo12: "So next item of business... We need someone to run the MTC. Anyone have some recommendations? Let's make this quick. Monday night football is about to start."

member of the Qo12: "What was the name of the guy that was running Webber State?"

another member: "Bishop."

member of the Qo12: "My bishop? No, he wasn't my bishop, you dummy!"

another member: "No, his last name is Bishop, you dumbass."

member of the Qo12: "Oh, yeah... Joe Bishop. He has experience running things."

president of the Qo12: "OK, what's the dirt on him?"

member of the Qo12: "Well, there was some lawsuit at Webber State... something to do with the Dean of Women or someone. Webber State paid her off so we don't know the details."

president of the Qo12: "OK, what else?"

member of the Qo12: "Elder Wells said he confessed to looking at porn or something while he was down in Argentina."

president of the Qof12: "Isn't like half the advertising in Argentina pornographic? I mean like prostitution has been legal there for like forever and the government builds the brothels."

member of the Qo12: "Yeah so no biggie."

president of the Qof12: "OK, any other recommendations? No? OK, everyone in favor of Joe Bishop say 'yea'.

All members of the Qo12: "Yea"

president of the Qof12: "Any 'nays'? OK, let's go home... I hope the Cowboys win tonight. I hear that their QB, Danny White, is a mormon."

Last edited by Uncle Ted; 04-05-2018 at 01:14 PM.

"If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU."Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

Ah, yes, well, this is a tacit concession to my view in this thread, which I am glad to see.

As you may recall (but no reason why you should), I view revelation more along the lines of the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium in evolution (which I know is no longer considered a legit evolutionary theory, but which still works here, I think). Start with the Book of Mormon and the D&C. and most recently I think the change to the HT/VT program, with much in between. There have also been many missteps in programs, policies, callings and choices. But the general arc, the general direction and, in some instances, the specific decisions, reflect God's guidance. But none of us have been saved from chance, from error, or from evil actions of others. Just ask the parents of the young man whose funeral I attended.

Can you answer the question without trotting out all of the academic windbaggery?

Well, if I do, I will have to use lots of short words which will make what I write so long that most will just skip it, so I get to the same place at the end of the day. So, I would like to take the time to write a post that will say what I want it to say in the words that I know best, and that are the ones most meant for the task at hand. Those words might be long, might be hard, or new, or of a vague sense to some of you, but they mean things, so I plan to use a lot of them.

"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

Yes. of course. Especially more than you and me. But they are not perfect. And they act imperfectly ALL THE TIME. Just liek you and me.

So did the changes at conference come from revelation to a prophet, or good ideas of the best exceptional men to live on earth at this time? See following the counsel of either a prophet or the most exceptional person is good enough for me. I’m all in. I just want to know which one I’m all in.

If the Bishop situation is just an accident of fallible men, why not just admit such, offer apologies and possibly restitution and move forward. Why comment on the victim’s behaviors and membership in the church?

That answer would not get me a TR in my next interview if given. Also would locally have me viewed as a heretic who would not be placed in callings where use of my agency would impact other members in a church setting.

Here is the pertinent TR question:

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Nothing about JiC's position prevents him from responding in the simple affirmative to this question. I sustain them to those offices without ever concluding they are or must always be right.

Nothing about JiC's position prevents him from responding in the simple affirmative to this question. I sustain them to those offices without ever concluding they are or must always be right.

“Only person” is not the same as “no different than you or me”. I would like you and JiC to start off the first week of the new EQ Sunday by stating that you, individually, are a prophet, seer and revelatory the same as Nelson. I’d suspect that wouldn’t go over with 100% approval rating. I know it wouldn’t in my ward.

So did the changes at conference come from revelation to a prophet, or good ideas of the best exceptional men to live on earth at this time? See following the counsel of either a prophet or the most exceptional person is good enough for me. I’m all in. I just want to know which one I’m all in.

I think they are inspired. I do not know if they were 'revealed' or 'seen' as we are talking about it here. But you should never rely on me or anyone else to answer that question., thats up to you to figure out with God.

Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest

If the Bishop situation is just an accident of fallible men, why not just admit such, offer apologies and possibly restitution and move forward. Why comment on the victim’s behaviors and membership in the church?

It is a little tricky here given that the church is facing potential civil liability. Moreover, I don't think the Church commented publicly on the victims behaviors. That was mostly through the son, as I recall. Moreover, before admitting fault and providing restitution, the church would need to be very careful about the facts and assessing what happened. SO it might not be that simple. That said, your suggested approach has a lot of appeal.

“Only person” is not the same as “no different than you or me”. I would like you and JiC to start off the first week of the new EQ Sunday by stating that you, individually, are a prophet, seer and revelatory the same as Nelson. I’d suspect that wouldn’t go over with 100% approval rating. I know it wouldn’t in my ward.

I would not say that because it is not true. When did I say I was the same? I have consistently drawn a clear distinction between me and the men in those offices. 'Only person" refers to holding the keys of the priesthood. They don't have any more right to revelation than you or me. But they do have the keys for revelation for the church. I do not. Nor do you, AFAIK.

I don't expect perfection in extending callings. I do think if the claim of zero tolerance for abuse is accurate that they have to include a system to red flag past sexual assault to prevent future callings. I think we all agree that we can't rely on superpowers.

Without getting into the details, I have some second to third hand familiarity with record tagging that was in place in the mid-80s. Based on what I am aware of from a 1986 case (not me, I was too young), there was never significant enough disclosure by Bishop to Elder Wells to have put him on a list. Anything he would have confessed to would have been either limited light petting or masturbation. Anything heavier than that, including repeated porn, would have gotten him flagged or at least it did the case of which I am aware. Possibly he was flagged after the 1987 report by Denson, as it was after his term at the MTC and there doesn't appear to be any further high profile callings after that time, unless his time as a welfare agent came after the MTC. I am not that clear from the interview.

There do not appear to have been any accusations made against him that would justify a flag, and therefore any flag would be reliant on any confession he may have made to Elder Wells or any other leader. Based on the interview, he is not too forthcoming with details under any circumstances, and she acknowledges that to the detriment of her case after he says he thought he repented (which obviously includes full confession):

No you didnít, because thereís a piece of you, Joe, inside you that says, ďIím not doneĒ. Thatís why you still carry it with you, because you have not completely repented. Your soul is not clean and purged, and itís covered in crimson. Thatís why you still carry this with you. Thatís why if you were to die today, you die with all this with you, and it goes with you. The repentance process isnít about, ďOkay, Iím going to tell part of my story to a Priesthood leader because I can get away with telling this much, and repent, and everybody around me will know that Iím tryingĒ. ó ó Well, the fact of the matter is you didnít really tell everything that you told, everything that you did. You gave little bits and pieces, and you covered yourself in a shroud and you walked along. And each time that happened, you carried something heavier with you each time you went because you never told the whole story when you confessed. If you did do it, then excommunicate it. So did you repent? No. Not the way that the Lord tells us to repent. You didnít say you were sorry. You didnít even tell the whole story. And so there are women like me out there struggling, and you defecated all over us. And you just walked ó ó along and you continued serving in the church like we were nothing. We were nothing. We are nothing.

That quote goes pretty strongly against her allegation that the Church knew enough about his predilections to not allow him to serve. Every other claim has severe statute of limitations problems and while this doesn't get rid of her discovery tolling, instead it appears to directly contradict her claims of fraud on the part of the Church. Maybe some other lawyers have a different take on this than me, but that is how I would start to address it if I worked for KM.

ďEvery player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they donít itís because they never got the chance.Ē Aroldis Chapman

Well, if I do, I will have to use lots of short words which will make what I write so long that most will just skip it, so I get to the same place at the end of the day. So, I would like to take the time to write a post that will say what I want it to say in the words that I know best, and that are the ones most meant for the task at hand. Those words might be long, might be hard, or new, or of a vague sense to some of you, but they mean things, so I plan to use a lot of them.

Knock yourself out. But be aware that you come across as opaque and even pretentious, especially if you claim you can't be bothered to dumb things down. The best writers/communicators have a gift for clear and simple prose, even when discussing complex topics. Steven Pinker:

The curse of knowledge is the single best explanation I know of why good people write bad prose. It simply doesn't occur to the writer that her readers don't know what she knows — that they haven't mastered the patois of her guild, can't divine the missing steps that seem too obvious to mention, have no way to visualize a scene that to her is as clear as day. And so she doesn't bother to explain the jargon, or spell out the logic, or supply the necessary detail.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

I would not say that because it is not true. When did I say I was the same? I have consistently drawn a clear distinction between me and the men in those offices. 'Only person" refers to holding the keys of the priesthood. They don't have any more right to revelation than you or me. But they do have the keys for revelation for the church. I do not. Nor do you, AFAIK.

You said JiC’s position would not prevent granting a TR. His claim which I replied to and these replies between you and I have stemmed from said

Originally Posted by JiC

I believe that we all act under revelation, and I do not believe the leadership has anymore advanced insights or revelation than you and me.

You said JiC’s position would not prevent granting a TR. His claim which I replied to and these replies between you and I have stemmed from said

Yes, that's true. They don't, except for areas where they hold keys that I don't hold. That's what it means for them to be Ps, Ss and Rs.

so as to my own sphere of responsibility (me, my family, etc.) They have no more right to inspiration/revelation than I do (and one might even argue less in some respects). That is how I took his comment. If you take it to mean that I can also receive revelation for the church, then I disagree with him. As I have said several times here, the prophets role is to receive guidance for the church and ew sustain him to that office for that purpose, acknowledging that we do not have that role or authority or ability.

Yes, that's true. They don't, except for areas where they hold keys that I don't hold. That's what it means for them to be Ps, Ss and Rs.

so as to my own sphere of responsibility (me, my family, etc.) They have no more right to inspiration/revelation than I do (and one might even argue less in some respects). That is how I took his comment. If you take it to mean that I can also receive revelation for the church, then I disagree with him. As I have said several times here, the prophets role is to receive guidance for the church and ew sustain him to that office for that purpose, acknowledging that we do not have that role or authority or ability.

BKP gave a talk not too long before he passed where he made the same argument you are making. But I can't find it.

"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster